Mechanically speaking, it is very basic. Invest points to reduce sway. But the way it feels is top notch IMO. In beginning sway is definitely noticeable and a smidgen annoying, but not overdone. If you invest points in it, it gets better. Now obviously, if it was a skill in the system CDPR has described for 2077, it would only improve gradually as you successfully perform actions over time. But as far as the feel of the sway is concerned, it's probably the best example can think of.
Mechanically speaking, it is very basic. Invest points to reduce sway. But the way it feels is top notch IMO. In beginning sway is definitely noticeable and a smidgen annoying, but not overdone. If you invest points in it, it gets better. Now obviously, if it was a skill in the system CDPR has described for 2077, it would only improve gradually as you successfully perform actions over time. But as far as the feel of the sway is concerned, it's probably the best example can think of.
I'm still agreeing with it. I just don't see it without certain problems that aren't that easy to solve.
And all I'm really asking myself anymore, is for the smart guns to change -- or another mechanic taking or mimicing their place with a bit different functionality.
It's starting to be the finals stages to try and push for something (anything). It's the time to be loud about it, especially with not really knowing if it is all a waste of time and effort or not.
It's a console exclusive, though (or am I wrong?). How much would you think a mouse would make a difference? It's usually quite a lot (for obvious reasons).
It's a console exclusive, though (or am I wrong?). How much would you think a mouse would make a difference? It's usually quite a lot (for obvious reasons).
Yeah it was a PS3/PS4 exclusive. I'm sure M&K would be different, but frankly I always use a controller for combat oriented games, so I don't know by how much.
I personally like to exhaust all conversation ideas and I like to be a sneaky MF. I finished Deus Ex mankind divided on hard with without firing a bullet and using the stun gun pistol taser and the electro firing glove! By the time the game was completed I had over $100,000 16 PRAXIS and I accumulated way too many guns and bullets the game I found decent but boring. NEXT time I'll have to go in with guns blazing lethality!
Yeah it was a PS3/PS4 exclusive. I'm sure M&K would be different, but frankly I always use a controller for combat oriented games, so I don't know by how much.
I was, too. I started using it for Skyrim, though, because I like the variable movement capabilities it offers. It's actually quite nice, and it feels more immersive. But I'd never use it in a shooter or any game that demands precision (I suck at aiming the bow with a controller).
I'll probably try both for 2077. If analog keyboard support is available, I'll take my Wooting for a spin.
Mechanically speaking, it is very basic. Invest points to reduce sway. But the way it feels is top notch IMO. In beginning sway is definitely noticeable and a smidgen annoying, but not overdone. If you invest points in it, it gets better. Now obviously, if it was a skill in the system CDPR has described for 2077, it would only improve gradually as you successfully perform actions over time. But as far as the feel of the sway is concerned, it's probably the best example can think of.
You described one of the concerns. Getting the right balance where a character lacking expertise with firearms imposes an appropriate experience on the player without going overboard. Likewise, the same applies to the character with the expertise in firearms. How reliable does the handling become at that point?
The other concern is how it plays into the character progression. It's easy to have incremental improvements with a hit chance or damage calculation. It's much more difficult when it goes beyond a simple calculation and involves the weapon handling itself. It may be realistic for the handling to range from incredibly difficult to extremely efficient. Whether the game play is good is another matter. This is particularly true if the player is forced to use firearms in life or death encounters before realizing improvement.
You'd also have to consider how the NPC's behave. Is it going to be based entirely on how far the character has progressed in the game? So early game encounters feature NPC's with poor accuracy but later game encounters do not? What if the NPC's in a specific area would have very good aim, within the context of the area? How would NPC's with different ability in the same encounter be handled?
Presumably the same concept would extend to melee weapons and hand to hand as well. Getting either one right is a challenge in itself.
From there you have to consider every element of the improvement and how it fits within the rest of the game. I'd guess weapon stability (either sway when turning or keeping the weapon steady when aiming), reload speed, recoil, fire rate, the way raising fire rate impacts recoil, etc. would be a good starting point. Those details would need to be nailed down. Which aspects of the character improvement impact it and how? How does the cyberware and various gear related improvements impact it?
Good idea, absolutely. It's difficult to get right and not without problems though.
No, why would that be the case? The only differentiation between tough and weak enemies (beyond armor/cyberware, and thus probably health) should be how good or bad they are at handling their weapons. I strongly do NOT think they should magically do more or less damage, except in melee, and then the difference should not be huge without good reason.
You answered this question within your own question. They have different abilities, that's how they're handled. Some may be better at shooting than others. Of course, this should be made evident to players from a name/visual perspective - in Skyrim, for example, you had your "Bandit Thugs" who were tougher and more well-equipped than regular Bandits.
So, in 2077, maybe a "Booster Thug" is equipped with a grenade launcher instead of an assault rifle. Or maybe a Booster Marksman is equipped with a sniper and sits back from long range to take pot shots at you. Maybe you have a Booster Brute who is heavily augmented and near-psycho, with a high Constitution stat, with lots of armor and health. Maybe he runs in with a shotgun or melee weapons.
If he takes enough damage, maybe he enrages and hits anything nearby, friend or foe, and now his allies have to attack him as well (giving you a tactical tool in combat).
It's more straightforward with melee. It's very unlikely you're going to miss with a real-time combat system. Obviously, stuff like damage increases and swing speed make more sense in melee, but there's no need for weapon sway. The harder you hit, the more damage you do - again, makes sense in melee (not so much with firearms - you can't just pull the trigger harder).
From there you have to consider every element of the improvement and how it fits within the rest of the game. I'd guess weapon stability (either sway when turning or keeping the weapon steady when aiming), reload speed, recoil, fire rate, the way raising fire rate impacts recoil, etc. would be a good starting point. Those details would need to be nailed down. Which aspects of the character improvement impact it and how?
Weapon skills. Strange question that you once again answer yourself. The aspect of character improvement that impacts weapon handling is... weapon skills.
Doesn't matter to me, that's up to CDPR and it's not a "challenge." You're just finding additional ways to make progression feel good. That's part of all game design and it's not unique to this combat system.
Granted, I'm not sure if the alternative, "My reticle isn't as steady, I can't control the weapon as well, my fire rate is lower or my character drops the gun while trying to reload it.", would necessarily be an improvement. It would be a more direct representation of character improvement though.
Problem with that way: you only makes your aim less bad, not better, meaning it will only help FPS players, as for other players spray and pray with or without a steady hand doesn't changes a thing.
You need some way to automatically lock at your target for RPG players to benefits from the advantages of a steadier hand.
How so? The quality action RPG systems make it inefficient to go outside the abilities of the character. Yes, if my character lacks appropriate abilities related to gun play it's still possible to engage in gun play and find success in it. It doesn't mean the player would choose to take this route. It's more likely the player would play to the strengths of the character. My character is good at shooting things so I am going to shoot things. If my character is bad at shooting things I'm going to steer away from shooting things.
If the player chooses to deliberately hamstring themselves, and force the character into playing to their weaknesses, it's not a fault with the game mechanics.
What a strange way to see things. You mean that you don't do things related to the situations and your character's way of seeing things, you only looks at what your character can do and do nothing else.
It sure doesn't seems natural at all.
For example, relating to the demo, if I was playing a diplomatic character and tried to talk to the corpo lady, I would have started a firefight despite my characters abilities the second she started to bullied me because of the otherwise loss of face.
Just to say that your way of seeing things looks horribly game-y, not at all a roleplay thingy.
No, why would that be the case? The only differentiation between tough and weak enemies (beyond armor/cyberware, and thus probably health) should be how good or bad they are at handling their weapons. I strongly do NOT think they should magically do more or less damage, except in melee, and then the difference should not be huge without good reason.
How do you determine how good or bad a NPC is at handling a weapon? It's not like the player manipulating a reticle. We're talking about a NPC here. How does this work beyond more or less accuracy? Going further, what are the ramifications? A less accurate NPC would miss more often. Go too far there and a less accurate enemy can easily be perceived as a stupid one. Go too far the other way and you have Jackel snipers in H2.
You answered this question within your own question. They have different abilities, that's how they're handled. Some may be better at shooting than others. Of course, this should be made evident to players from a name/visual perspective - in Skyrim, for example, you had your "Bandit Thugs" who were tougher and more well-equipped than regular Bandits.
This isn't what I was getting at. I do think better equipped enemies is a concept they should use to explain why they're stronger. The problem comes when the player has to spend more time lining up a shot due to limited character ability, but certain NPC's in a specific encounter have strong shooting ability. It's the exact same issue you face when a player with poor twitch reflexes plays a FPS with short kill times (not that you need twitch reflexes to do well in a FPS....).
There is a large difference between improving damage, hit chance or any simplified background calculation and the actual act of aiming. In the former you just do less of those things. In the latter you likely take longer to line targets up. This means more exposure time, less time doing damage without being vulnerable, etc.
It's more straightforward with melee. It's very unlikely you're going to miss with a real-time combat system. Obviously, stuff like damage increases and swing speed make more sense in melee, but there's no need for weapon sway. The harder you hit, the more damage you do - again, makes sense in melee (not so much with firearms - you can't just pull the trigger harder).
Passive weapon sway, probably not. Loss of control when following through with a swing, having it taken away and used against you, why not? I see no reason to restrict the "realism" or similar handling system to firearms.
Weapon skills. Strange question that you once again answer yourself. The aspect of character improvement that impacts weapon handling is... weapon skills.
I'm not discrediting the suggestion. It's about damn time we got something new. I just think it's a bit naive to think it would be simple to implement.
Problem with that way: you only makes your aim less bad, not better, meaning it will only help FPS players, as for other players spray and pray with or without a steady hand doesn't changes a thing.
You need some way to automatically lock at your target for RPG players to benefits from the advantages of a steadier hand.
Can we please stop pretending "RPG players" are innately terrible at any combat system where they cannot stop the game play on a whim and place all the decision making at the hands of the game? "RPG player" does not mean physically disabled player. If you want these options to accommodate those needs say so. If you want combat based on character agency, say so as well. Both requests are reasonable.
What a strange way to see things. You mean that you don't do things related to the situations and your character's way of seeing things, you only looks at what your character can do and do nothing else.
It sure doesn't seems natural at all.
For example, relating to the demo, if I was playing a diplomatic character and tried to talk to the corpo lady, I would have started a firefight despite my characters abilities the second she started to bullied me because of the otherwise loss of face.
Just to say that your way of seeing things looks horribly game-y, not at all a roleplay thingy.
Why would my character run around looking to get into a firefight if they were not good in a firefight? That would only be in character if there was an Intelligence stat and I elected to put it to 3 or lower. In that case talking wouldn't exactly be a strength either. In which case my character better be good at combat or it's going to be an interesting experience. Likewise, if my character is a lawful good hero with no knowledge of knife fighting they wouldn't equip a knife before going on a killing spree.
Yeah, you could say the character is bad at combat but has a hot head on their shoulders. Maybe they get into a spot where they do something impulsive and end up in a fight. You have to remember this character is still bad at combat. So why would it be a problem for them to struggle in it?
Well they've already said that skills for the player character (i.e. small arms handling) are increased by successfully performing actions. So as the player character increases their skill, the weapon sway & recoil effect would be reduced. The reload speed would be increased. There will also be perks which, if I understand it correctly, work by investing points you earn from gaining experience or street cred. I haven't heard any details yet about what specific perks will be available to the player.
As far as how good or bad and NPC is at handling a weapon ... like most other games, I would imagine it works by first determining their role (corpo bodyguard probably better than than noodle salesman), by their level (which we could see in the demo differed depending on the NPC), and by the abilities the level and gameplay designers give the NPC.
Can we please stop pretending "RPG players" are innately terrible at any combat system where they cannot stop the game play on a whim and place all the decision making at the hands of the game? "RPG player" does not mean physically disabled player. If you want these options to accommodate those needs say so. If you want combat based on character agency, say so as well. Both requests are reasonable.
I'm not disabled but I'm terrible at FPS (like I said before I'm a sitting duck). I say RPG players because it's shorter that "Players who don't like FPS for wathever reason" and because C2077 is an RPG so it is supposed to appeal to that kind of players.
But perhaps you would prefer non-FPS players?
Yeah, you could say the character is bad at combat but has a hot head on their shoulders. Maybe they get into a spot where they do something impulsive and end up in a fight. You have to remember this character is still bad at combat. So why would it be a problem for them to struggle in it?
Because the FPS player and the non-FPS player won't have the same chances in that situation with the same character.
It's the problem with any system (not specifically C2077, or even a video game) where the player can compensate the character he is playing.
Like an old Crab bushi player at L5R who thought he could put all his points in his fighting skills because he would roleplay it like a Courtisan anyway.
Just because it's your choice to remain terrible at shooting doesn't mean you can't improve. Everything in life takes practice and you will never get better if you don't try.
I'm not disabled but I'm terrible at FPS (like I said before I'm a sitting duck). I say RPG players because it's shorter that "Players who don't like FPS for wathever reason" and because C2077 is an RPG so it is supposed to appeal to that kind of players.
But perhaps you would prefer non-FPS players?
I'd prefer to dispense with labels entirely. Alas, we don't always get what we want. Those labels make sense when they refer to a preference for a certain type of game play. It would be more fair to look at "RPG player" as one whom prefers combat based on character agency and "FPS player" as one whom prefers combat based on player agency. As I said earlier, I'd be surprised if the latter of the two was concerned much, if at all, with CP to begin with since it's supposedly a RPG. Odds are most players being referred to as "FPS player" aren't looking for combat based on either player or character control, but some combination of both.
I'm not sure I buy the sitting duck reference. There is a difference between lacking any ability to handle real-time game play and lacking the ability to excel at a FPS. Furthermore, real-time game play and FPS are not interchangeable. It would be like saying red and green are colors so colors are red. Character vs player driven combat and real-time vs on-demand pause/turn-based are separate concepts entirely. Lumping them together is misleading.
For the record, I'm not great at FPS games either. At least not the twitch reflex/stay on target/general aiming component. I've never been good at this area. It's never been my preferred game genre either. It's become less appealing as I've aged.
Yeah, this area has been discussed to death . Action RPG combat systems allow player control but do it in a way where the player builds and progresses the character in a specific manner, and adapts their approach to combat around it. They achieve this by making it ineffective to approach combat with actions the character lacks proficiency with. An analogy would be a spellcaster character in, say, Baldurs Gate (1 and 2), IWD (1 and 2), PS:T, PoR, etc. You could take that spellcaster and run around and smack stuff with a quarterstaff all game. Or... you could cast spells with them. I'd wager most people didn't run around beating stuff to death with a quarterstaff.
For the 15th time, my preference would be for a turn-based or optional pause system staying very close to the PnP rules and an action RPG system. Everyone wins.
As I said earlier, I'd be surprised if the latter of the two was concerned much, if at all, with CP to begin with since it's supposedly a RPG. Odds are most players being referred to as "FPS player" aren't looking for combat based on either player or character control, but some combination of both.
Do you know that Mass Effect 3, which was labelled as an RPG too, had a lots of players who did not play the solo part, and that soldier class was the most played one in both solo and multiplayer.
And that Fallout 3 had people cry over the aim being influenced by your character's skills?
You don't think those people were the people normally playing FPS?
I'm about sure the C2077 gameplay video appealed to them, but I'll investigate a little to verify that.
I'm not sure I buy the sitting duck reference. There is a difference between lacking any ability to handle real-time game play and lacking the ability to excel at a FPS. Furthermore, real-time game play and FPS are not interchangeable. It would be like saying red and green are colors so colors are red. Character vs player driven combat and real-time vs on-demand pause/turn-based are separate concepts entirely. Lumping them together is misleading.
I'm not against real time gameplay (even if I prefer turn based/paused one on a general basis), it's just that many suggestions I see here only help those who can already aim, aka FPS players (still the shorter way to say it).
It's even more annoying to see that when I'm almost sure I've already played a game including shooting at things where you just switching targets in real time just by pressing a button (which should not be hard to include at all).
For the record, I'm not great at FPS games either. At least not the twitch reflex/stay on target/general aiming component. I've never been good at this area.
Like I said I cannot aim at all while moving my character (and in general I cannot do two things at the same time even outside of video games. I have never been able to do a dictation and almost cannot do mental calculation when someone else is telling me to).
Yeah, this area has been discussed to death . Action RPG combat systems allow player control but do it in a way where the player builds and progresses the character in a specific manner, and adapts their approach to combat around it. They achieve this by making it ineffective to approach combat with actions the character lacks proficiency with. An analogy would be a spellcaster character in, say, Baldurs Gate (1 and 2), IWD (1 and 2), PS:T, PoR, etc. You could take that spellcaster and run around and smack stuff with a quarterstaff all game. Or... you could cast spells with them. I'd wager most people didn't run around beating stuff to death with a quarterstaff.
It's not the same case actually.
With some of the systems I see given here a marksman V played by me would be shooting far worst than a non marksman V played by an FPS player (again I'll use that term until you propose better), because even perfect aim doesn't help if you cannot put your crossair on your target to begin with.
And for the comparison, I would say that there would still be a difference:
-The "RPG player" would be exactly in the sutation you imagine.
-The "FPS player" would not be optimal, but by being the dice would go full 20 on his roll and then still be useful.
So the would make a difference in effectiveness between those players despite playing the exact same character.
Cause as I said in another topic: in an player controlled game the player is the dice, and when it come to FPS gameplay I'm worth a 2 (not a 1, I'm not crippled) while an "FPS player" would be the equivalent of a good roll.
Just because it's your choice to remain terrible at shooting doesn't mean you can't improve. Everything in life takes practice and you will never get better if you don't try.
It's not like I lacked practice, as I did a lots of lan when I was younger, but I never did get any good, only camping with a sniper rifle at best.
Actually I was not that bad at the time where there was no height in aim, like in old doom games. But since one can move his crosshair anyway he want's I'm unable to aim while moving.
You are making an assumption that the player is able to compensate for the character he is playing. But what if he is not?
Because as much as I'd love to see RPG combat mechanics based on CP2020/FNFF in CP2077 I honestly don't expect to. CDPR has a good start on an FPS system and a really lame "Smartgun" as a carrot (it auto hits, no character attributes or skills even involved) for the non FPS gamers. It's pretty obvious CDPR sees CP2077 as an "Action-RPG". And I have no doubt it'll sell well, even most RPG gamers (since they don't have significant difficulty with FPS games) will buy it.
So no reason to push for "something that might actually happen", we've already seen it.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant: "What if the player is not able to compensate for the character he's playing as, because it's not possible to compensate for it, despite the player's >gaming< background"?
Well, you’re the ”lucky” one here, so to speak. You got to argue mechanics; I’ve done nothing else lately than outlines of genre definitions and semantics. Perhaps I should start to demand turnbased combat and (like I did at a time) argue for its superiority on all accounts.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant: "What if the player is not able to compensate for the character he's playing as, because it's not possible to compensate for it, despite the player's >gaming< background"?
. Action RPG combat systems allow player control but do it in a way where the player builds and progresses the character in a specific manner, and adapts their approach to combat around it. They achieve this by making it ineffective to approach combat with actions the character lacks proficiency with. An analogy would be a spellcaster character in, say, Baldurs Gate (1 and 2), IWD (1 and 2), PS:T, PoR, etc. You could take that spellcaster and run around and smack stuff with a quarterstaff all game. Or... you could cast spells with them. I'd wager most people didn't run around beating stuff to death with a quarterstaff. 
