Voted for 4 and 7.
A lot of us were hoping for the combat of 2077 to be much more lethal, for both sides - since that clearly won't be the case, by default anyway, a difficulty mode that makes both sides die to a handful of bullets (if that) would be fantastic.
However, that's not all a difficulty mode should change. It should also make the AI smarter, more tactical, and possibly even more aggressive if they feel they have an advantage (numbers, superior firepower, or you running out of ammo audibly).
With that said, I don't want that to mean ironman gameplay. I get the appeal, but keep that as its own separate thing, if it must be in at all. A lot of us want the challenge without the massive punishment that comes with getting kicked back to the beginning of the game (particularly since 2077 will be story-driven, and not just a "welp, guess I'll reroll" experience like Skyrim or some roguelike).
A lot of us were hoping for the combat of 2077 to be much more lethal, for both sides - since that clearly won't be the case, by default anyway, a difficulty mode that makes both sides die to a handful of bullets (if that) would be fantastic.
However, that's not all a difficulty mode should change. It should also make the AI smarter, more tactical, and possibly even more aggressive if they feel they have an advantage (numbers, superior firepower, or you running out of ammo audibly).
With that said, I don't want that to mean ironman gameplay. I get the appeal, but keep that as its own separate thing, if it must be in at all. A lot of us want the challenge without the massive punishment that comes with getting kicked back to the beginning of the game (particularly since 2077 will be story-driven, and not just a "welp, guess I'll reroll" experience like Skyrim or some roguelike).
Arma isn't as good as it is hyped up to be. But I voted #4 anyway.
Afaik, in Arma you can kill somebody by shooting their feet..
What I like about Arma multiplayer combat is that you have to both pay attention to your surroundings, and also make the best of whatever surroundings you have for cover and concealment and whatever bright ideas you have. Being able to dictate your distance to your targets is a sensible thing and also important, because you probably don't want to just run around with a sniper rifle, or a light machinegun, but instead use such weapons from a distance. Also, a good idea to have a direction to retreat to while staying in cover, so that you aren't just hiding behind a small rock out in an open field and being stuck out there once the shooting starts.
Afaik, in Arma you can kill somebody by shooting their feet..
What I like about Arma multiplayer combat is that you have to both pay attention to your surroundings, and also make the best of whatever surroundings you have for cover and concealment and whatever bright ideas you have. Being able to dictate your distance to your targets is a sensible thing and also important, because you probably don't want to just run around with a sniper rifle, or a light machinegun, but instead use such weapons from a distance. Also, a good idea to have a direction to retreat to while staying in cover, so that you aren't just hiding behind a small rock out in an open field and being stuck out there once the shooting starts.
9! Let us tweak our adventure how we want to, or at least make it easier for modders to do it.
Cyberpunk too. Aarteries, bone fragments, shock... feet are full of ways to die, really.
I enjoy a good story and some action, and I like to just take it easy the first run through. At my age the fingers just don't move as fast as they used to...if ya get what I mean. If no story mode, then at least supply a T-shirt with a big target on it, I'll happily wear it. 
Other then that, I should be fine.
Other then that, I should be fine. 
Make that two t-shirts, I'll wear one too.I enjoy a good story and some action, and I like to just take it easy the first run through. At my age the fingers just don't move as fast as they used to...if ya get what I mean. If no story mode, then at least supply a T-shirt with a big target on it, I'll happily wear it.
Laugh if you wish, but I played Witcher 3 in "Story" mode because as simple as many found the combat I just didn't want to deal with the inevitable frustration I knew I'd experience when I missed a dodge, for the tenth time, and died, for the tenth time.
I wrote feet, so I mean feet, not legs. Just to clarify. I.e one foot, two feet.
This reminds me, that, like in movies, as in games, people dying immediately should perhaps be something that is perceived as really weird. It works because of the inherent pacing and tempo in watching a movie, but really, dying immediately, tend to be an exaggerated event in movies, and probably games I am thinking.
That's actually the "dying from shock" Sardukhar wrote earlier.
I know it's a RPG, but I still choose (4), I hate life bars in FPS.
About the difficulty. Since life bars are a no-no for me, I would love to see for once NPC's using more abilitys, smart moves, bold moves and flanking dependending on the difficulty.
I don't mind having my ass kicked by NPC's because I enjoy learning how to counter them.
Tough I know some Dev's will look at this post and think "F*** you a**hole..." ಠ_ಠ
Kidding, cheers and keep the good work.
About the difficulty. Since life bars are a no-no for me, I would love to see for once NPC's using more abilitys, smart moves, bold moves and flanking dependending on the difficulty.
I don't mind having my ass kicked by NPC's because I enjoy learning how to counter them.
Tough I know some Dev's will look at this post and think "F*** you a**hole..." ಠ_ಠ
Kidding, cheers and keep the good work.
Yeah.
I get that. So did I.
Lot of blood goes through your feet - lots of bones in there too.
Video game combat is so very very far from the unsafety of real combat it's kind of hilarious. I once gouged my own eye and had to wear a patch for six weeks. From a small thumbnail gouge during fighting. Yeah. Humans are fragile.
That's part of why there is so much combat in video games, this idea we eat bullets by the dozen - rendered realistically, designers for humans characters would have to cut the combat by 90% or something otherwise it'd be constant reload times.
Also why in Pen and Paper cyberpunk, combat is much much less common (maybe one lethal fight per 6 hour gaming session) until the PCs are silly overpowered. Which only happens in silly campaigns anyway or military ones, with medevac, armour, etc.
LOL! Like this. In some games I just gave in to the fact that I was going to be a professional target, and I was quite good at it too if I say so myself.
People dying immediately happens pretty often in real life. I've lost a number of good friends to land mine injuries that you would think are easily survived. Civilians tend to be even more fragile, in my experience; immediately dying from shock from being shot in the foot is very far from unbelievable.
In fact, most spider bite deaths are because of shock or panic, not because of the spider's venom. It's rather difficult for even many of the most dangerous spider species to kill you on their own; you generally have to help them in some way. There's a couple of very deadly snakes that are the same way.
To all of you seemingly suggesting that it is totally plausible to die from wounds to the feet, always dropping dead the next moment does not make any sense when getting shot in the feet in games.
Locational damage plus bleeding (gradual health loss) & pain (visual distortions) & crippled (mobility distortions) statuses to the rescue.
For an aside... TB combat would be much more realistic in this regard because it can plausibly project the effects of even a small wound to the gameplay so that it makes a difference and the player notices it. Whereas in hectic realtime, the player does not have time to notice without the effects being excessive in relation to the intended gameplay experience.
For an aside... TB combat would be much more realistic in this regard because it can plausibly project the effects of even a small wound to the gameplay so that it makes a difference and the player notices it. Whereas in hectic realtime, the player does not have time to notice without the effects being excessive in relation to the intended gameplay experience.
To all of you seemingly suggesting that it is totally plausible to die from wounds to the feet, always dropping dead the next moment does not make any sense when getting shot in the feet in games.
Have you ever been shot in the foot? A lot of media that doesn't have it as instant death tends to drastically underestimate just how painful that can be.
The problem with this poll is that it doesn't have a realism option in terms of Cyberpunk. ARMA is not Cyberpunk; you don't have the benefit of cyberware that can make you a much more resilient target. In Cyberpunk 2077 what I most want is realism in terms of that world. Enemies should only go down fast or slow if it makes sense for them to do so. The same goes for the player. If you're barely augmented/armored, gunfights should be very dangerous for you. But once you become borged-out/chromed-out, you should probably get to stomp about like the Terminator a bit easier (until you run into enemies with enough weapons/ammo to counter you).
Even in the E3 demo trailer we saw the Trauma Team dropship laying waste to the scavs, but the scav boss wasn't going down easy because he was heavily augmented. That's what the game should be like.
I'm 100% fine having sliders/settings to fine-tune the parameters, but overall that's what I want the difficulty to be like.
Even in the E3 demo trailer we saw the Trauma Team dropship laying waste to the scavs, but the scav boss wasn't going down easy because he was heavily augmented. That's what the game should be like.
I'm 100% fine having sliders/settings to fine-tune the parameters, but overall that's what I want the difficulty to be like.
I voted 4, 5, 8, 9.
Interesting discussion here. I don't only believe, but I know so far that we all humans are different when it comes to feeling pain and survive, and there are just too many parameters thus making it too difficult to translate that into the game code.
I'm pretty sure what is required for an "advanced" rifle shooting game, or a hand-to-hand fights are different, even with relatively closed stats or physics. So I agree with Skyler.
For now I'm more concerned about A.I., not just ennemies but every NPC in global. I know that the average citizen won't need much code lines compared to a gang member for ex, but I think this game would be a lovely opportunity to test what I like to call "personality parameter" that I hardly see in every game. To make it short, it's a reaction based on a personality check, that would make every character more realistic. But I'll keep that for an appropriate thread.
I'm just concerned about it and I gladly support A.I. development through solo-play RPGs
Interesting discussion here. I don't only believe, but I know so far that we all humans are different when it comes to feeling pain and survive, and there are just too many parameters thus making it too difficult to translate that into the game code.
I'm pretty sure what is required for an "advanced" rifle shooting game, or a hand-to-hand fights are different, even with relatively closed stats or physics. So I agree with Skyler.
For now I'm more concerned about A.I., not just ennemies but every NPC in global. I know that the average citizen won't need much code lines compared to a gang member for ex, but I think this game would be a lovely opportunity to test what I like to call "personality parameter" that I hardly see in every game. To make it short, it's a reaction based on a personality check, that would make every character more realistic. But I'll keep that for an appropriate thread.
I'm just concerned about it and I gladly support A.I. development through solo-play RPGs
It's a good bet multiple difficulties will exist for a number of reasons. I think the Witcher series offered enough levels in this regard. So something along similar lines is expected.
I will say after learning the game in W3 DM felt a bit too forgiving. Once you knew enemy attack patterns, how to gear and do character builds, how to prepare for encounters (90% of the battle most of the time, which fit thematically) and how to exploit the type of enemy (bombs, oils, potions, signs) it lost a lot of the challenge. The worst offender was Quen. It wasn't the end of the world but worth noting.
I tend to prefer when difficulty increases raise the lethality toward the player instead of slapping more health or DR on the enemy. Bullet sponge enemies feel too artificial. Plus, it raises the suspense factor when the player character becomes more... fragile. If enemies are going to become harder to take down it should be for a reason. As an example, the enemy has stronger protective equipment. It goes without saying this advanced gear should fit contextually within the encounter (no super soldiers where they wouldn't be).
Other options would be different, stronger enemies in place of weaker types, more enemies (as long as it doesn't go overboard) and more accurate/precise enemies as difficulty goes up. Again, provided it fits within the encounter.
I'd rather not see advanced AI with higher difficulty for the reasons provided by sv. It implies less functional AI at lower difficulty. There are better ways to add challenge. Ways where the AI isn't marginalized on lower difficulty. The AI should be as intelligent as it can be at every difficulty.
Realism and ironman options would be fine. Ideally those would be independent options IMO.
I like the idea Kofe mention as well. Independent difficulty adjustments to different areas of the game = more granularity = more better. Likewise, reducing the strength of the character via slower progression, gearing ability, and success with any type of ability check sounds good. It's a good alternative to making the environment/encounters arbitrarily more powerful.
I will say after learning the game in W3 DM felt a bit too forgiving. Once you knew enemy attack patterns, how to gear and do character builds, how to prepare for encounters (90% of the battle most of the time, which fit thematically) and how to exploit the type of enemy (bombs, oils, potions, signs) it lost a lot of the challenge. The worst offender was Quen
. It wasn't the end of the world but worth noting.I tend to prefer when difficulty increases raise the lethality toward the player instead of slapping more health or DR on the enemy. Bullet sponge enemies feel too artificial. Plus, it raises the suspense factor when the player character becomes more... fragile. If enemies are going to become harder to take down it should be for a reason. As an example, the enemy has stronger protective equipment. It goes without saying this advanced gear should fit contextually within the encounter (no super soldiers where they wouldn't be).
Other options would be different, stronger enemies in place of weaker types, more enemies (as long as it doesn't go overboard) and more accurate/precise enemies as difficulty goes up. Again, provided it fits within the encounter.
I'd rather not see advanced AI with higher difficulty for the reasons provided by sv. It implies less functional AI at lower difficulty. There are better ways to add challenge. Ways where the AI isn't marginalized on lower difficulty. The AI should be as intelligent as it can be at every difficulty.
Realism and ironman options would be fine. Ideally those would be independent options IMO.
I like the idea Kofe mention as well. Independent difficulty adjustments to different areas of the game = more granularity = more better. Likewise, reducing the strength of the character via slower progression, gearing ability, and success with any type of ability check sounds good. It's a good alternative to making the environment/encounters arbitrarily more powerful.
