Weekly Poll 5/11/2020 - Combat, the nitty-gritty. TTK, etc!

+

I hope to see:


  • Total voters
    81
Nope. Look at the poll results. People seem pretty united behind some key concepts - Wounds/bleeding, one-shot kills, complexity over HP boosts.

After that, it's either fast TTK or medium-fast TTK. Slow TTK is a small, small minority.

I'd say the results indicate a pretty clear preference from voters on what they'd like to see.

You can argue all the polls are "inane" if you want to be rude, but in this case, clear trends are there.
Wasn't referring to your poll as inane. And fair enough, I hadn't glanced at the latest results. But the bullet sponge debate specifically is something that won't be resolved until we see an explanation of mechanics or lengthy combat vids. Then we can get specific about it.
 
Wasn't referring to your poll as inane. And fair enough, I hadn't glanced at the latest results. But the bullet sponge debate specifically is something that won't be resolved until we see an explanation of mechanics or lengthy combat vids. Then we can get specific about it.


True, true.

It is, again, remarkable how little we know to this date. Even if we have seen combat, it would be at one diff level and in "demo mode", so in order to get any real idea, we'd need some examples or at least descriptions of what the different difficulties do and how they handle outside of demos where you don't want the demonstrator to get murtilated by 30 angry Maelstrom...
 
Bullet sponge topic again....this is so relative at this point as to be inane, at least until the game comes out. Some people want it to be like COD, others like Borderlands. In between there's a yawning chasm of variation.
Even though I tend to agree that chances of seeing the game change after these polls are close to zero in particular at this point, balancing is one of the last processes of game development. So, if CDPR has read this forum in the last 2 years (complaints for bullet sponges are at least as old as the 48 min demo), we still have chances they can tweak the numbers right by launch or with a patch.
But more importantly, it's good to speak up for their next game as well.
Complaints for W3 gear system led to (or it seems like) a less restrictive system in CP where you don't need to loot like borderlands to keep your numbers high enough, or you don't have gear locked by levels, which was silly IMHO (and it was reflected in missions being impossible to be completed if underlevelled).
Also, and I think it's important to point it out, the demos have already shown a fast TTK for enemies of V's level, meaning that's the way CDPR has designed it. Whether they become immortal if 4 levels higher than V, is what we're trying to understand from demos and to prevent as much as possible.
Personally, this was the biggest issue in W3 BY FAR.

Edit: I'm not a programmer, BUT (it's already stupid I know) going from a formula to calculate DMG like DMG*LVL^2 (level is the decisive factor) to DMG*LVL (important but not exponential) or DMG and that's it, makes a huge difference and can be done in a short time. Testing if it's appropriate takes lots of time, on the other hand.
 
Last edited:
Let them just make a game that is fun to play. I wasn't interested in playing the Witcher 3.
1) Because at the most difficult level of difficulty, all enemies died in seconds. If the enemy dies quickly, they do not have time to do anything in battle.
2) Because Geralt had a lot of treatment options. Quen, potions. Infinite stamina, infinite energy.
3) Because even if you were killed, which was rare, you could download the saves before the fight.
It was not interesting to fight, the enemies were weak and stupid. And most importantly, my character was so strong that exploring the world in order to increase the strength of the character was useless and not interesting. All the items in the game seemed to be solid garbage.
I want the enemies to be strong in cyberpunk and explor the world was interesting and useful.
3 or 4 or combined, 5 if the crit is not a cheat like in Witcher 3 where every hit could be a crit, maybe 7, 9.
Replace the level with gear level. Put on equipment + gear level, increase the skill + gear level and so on.
For exaple: if you increase fire Damage on 50%, all enemies with a weakness for fire reduce their gear level by 100. All enemies without any resists to fire on 50. All enemies that have a fire resistance reduce their gear level by 25.
By itself, gear level does not give anything, but it shows your strength relative to other enemies.
 
Last edited:
Thinking more on this, I'm not sure everyone is viewing "Time-to-Kill" to mean the same thing.

I refer to that to mean the amount of time a single character will receive sustained weapons fire (sustained DPS) before they drop. So, a TTK of 5 seconds means: if I start shooting at a single NPC, and they just stand there:

...1 Mississippi...
...2 Mississippi...
...3 Mississippi...
...4 Mississippi...
...5 Mississippi...

...and the NPC finally drops. My gun was blazing that whole time. That's...a long, dang time of continuously firing at an unmoving target to kill it.

Therefore, a TTK of about 2-3 seconds doesn't mean that fights are completely over in 2-3 seconds -- it only means that one character can be dropped in 2-3 seconds. The rest are still fighting. In order to live longer, characters have to take cover, dodge, use shielding, use heavier armor, etc.

So, I'm all good with fire-fights that last a couple of minutes between multiple characters with lots of movement, tactics, etc. I just want to avoid situations where I get the drop on an NPC, and instead of getting the kill and moving on with the fight, I wind up like:

BulletSponge.gif
 
1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10.

We're not talking about bosses, so I think it's silly to want a long time to kill for the average enemy. Attacking weak spots and using special weapon effects (like high dismemberment rate) should give you a big edge. I really don't want this to feel like the division.
 
So, I'm all good with fire-fights that last a couple of minutes between multiple characters with lots of movement, tactics, etc.
Since the average RL "shootout" lasts less then 1 minute (many less then 15 seconds) we'll agree to disagree.
 
Since the average RL "shootout" lasts less then 1 minute (many less then 15 seconds) we'll agree to disagree.

Of course. And if there's a way to make firefights last <20 seconds, I'm using that option.

What I'm saying is: game. I think most players would probably not enjoy ArmA-levels difficulty in combat. So some level of exaggeration to survivability and pacing is almost a given. How much, though?

I'd choose to have it fall somewhere between a Call of Duty turkey-shoot (where enemies drop in 1-2 hits while I can take 20) and a Fallout 4, bullet-sponge simulator (where a single enemy just sits there and soaks up 4-5 magazines before ragdolling and glitching into a tree.)
 
What I'm saying is: game. I think most players would probably not enjoy ArmA-levels difficulty in combat. So some level of exaggeration to survivability and pacing is almost a given. How much, though?
I seriously doubt if most players have ever played a game with ArmA-levels difficulty in combat.
Even Arma has a noticable level of exaggeration and you can "first aid" yourself back to full health (well, someone on your team can, if you're KO'd by a hit).
 
I seriously doubt if most players have ever played a game with ArmA-levels difficulty in combat.
Even Arma has a noticable level of exaggeration and you can "first aid" yourself back to full health (well, someone on your team can, if you're KO'd by a hit).

I'd say that's a pretty big assumption to make. Despite being pretty harsh, ArmA and Operation Flashpoint have always been pretty widely known and popular with a sizeable niche. (Even back when ArmA was Operation Flashpoint. ;)) And there are plenty of other popular titles over the years that accomplish much the same approach (Rainbow Six, S.W.A.T., Ghost Recon, SCUM, Escape from Tarkov...)

I'd argue that most players are familiar with that style and are at least aware enough of how it works to know whether or not they'd be interested in playing that sort of game. The fact remains, though, that such titles, despite their popularity and success within their own audiences, have never really carried mass appeal.

I'd imagine that CDPR is definitely aiming for mass appeal, much like TW3. Ideally, I'd make harsher combat an option. Give players a more "game" experience by default (more survivability, slower and more obvious fight resolution), but allow an option for much more definitive combat difficulty (2-3 second TTK, less effective max armor, maybe even "one shot, one kill" if a weakness is exploited).

EDIT: Worth adding, I was just considering, that the true challenge here is that it's virtually impossible to come up with a base system, balance that as much as possible...then go create a very different system, and try to rebalance everything that way, as well. (It's why most games simply leave the combat systems mostly the same, and just increase global damage or hit-point pools.)
 
Last edited:
I'd say that's a pretty big assumption to make. Despite being pretty harsh, ArmA and Operation Flashpoint have always been pretty widely known and popular with a sizeable niche.
That they are.
BUT ... how many people playing such games ALSO do FPSs or RPGs?
I'd guess maybe half?
Half of a niche market isn't very many.
 
That they are.
BUT ... how many people playing such games ALSO do FPSs or RPGs?
I'd guess maybe half?
Half of a niche market isn't very many.

Many many many. Everyone I know, everyone, who plays ArmA also plays/played Skyrim or Fallout 3/4 or Witcher 3. RPGs are super popular now.

Everyone in my family also plays/played Torment, Fallout 1/2, Pillars 2, etc. But I make sure my family is -civilized-!

That said, you and I generally agree on this subject. My issue in Arma isn't lethality, it's the *&^@ accuracy everyone has! Mouse/controler whatever. Bah.

This is why I prefer the Deus Ex/Bloodlines FPS model, but I doubt we'll see that. Which is still a real pity! It works well and when you get your Rifle skill up to 8 and can hit regular shots on the move, does that not feel great? I think it does.

Bah.
 
That said, you and I generally agree on this subject. My issue in Arma isn't lethality, it's the *&^@ accuracy everyone has! Mouse/controler whatever. Bah.
Why I don't actually play Arma. As bad as I am at FPS, and as good as the average Arma player is it's pointless to even try.

That said I love to watch vids from the various "realism" groups in Arma.
 
Why I don't actually play Arma. As bad as I am at FPS, and as good as the average Arma player is it's pointless to even try.

That said I love to watch vids from the various "realism" groups in Arma.

Some of them are super impressive.

Now, take away 80% of that accuracy because under stress and you start to see some "realism."
 
Why I don't actually play Arma. As bad as I am at FPS, and as good as the average Arma player is it's pointless to even try.

Go play ArmA again -- you don't need to be good at FPS. In fact, if you're not already aiming at the proper spot before the enemy appears...you're already dead. It's actually really slow-paced.


BUT ... how many people playing such games ALSO do FPSs or RPGs?

I'd say a lot. I'd say most "gamers" are like me...but they don't get that into it.

'Most' gamers, I'd argue, are niche. They like a particular thing, and they go after that thing, all the while not really getting into all of the other things long the way.

'Other' gamers are one extreme or the next. They like anything offering over-the-top complexity and depth...or they want a surface level experience that just lets them get away from life for a while without investing. One group has a vested interest in all things interactive...the second group has many real-life considerations that they can't set aside for virtual kibbles.

Me? I like the concept of gaming.

Like education, literature, and performance (which are my master's fields), I like seeing how people reflect human challenges in gaming form. Not just video gaming...but RPG gaming...and board gaming...and card gaming...(even though I intrinsically hate cards)...

So, I can totally get into Dark Souls, and Jedi Academy, and Kingdoms of Amalur, and The Witcher, and XCOM, and Master of Magic, and Starcraft, and Warhammer 40K: Dark Crusade, and Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns, and Battefront II (2005), and Morrowind, and Jagged Alliance 2, and Ultima VII, and Elite: Dangerous, and Mechwarrior Online...

But still dispute the acclaim of almost identical games. And I don't expect to win. In fact, I expect to be looked at as a 'weirdo' from pretty much every other angle than the one I'm presently arguing. (Because I'm not really arguing for "a game". I'm arguing for a philosophy.)

But there are still games I really like. TW3, obviously. And Amalur. And Dragon's Dogma. Elite: Dangerous is probably my favorite flight-sim model. Mount and Blade is something I'd play even while in pain...
 
Top Bottom