What Should Be The Team Size and Control Scope?

+
Regardless of what the PnP game did, nothing's been said yet about the video game being team-based, so yes, it's still something that needs a "Maybe".

So it could be single character, or short-term AI allies, or full AI companions, or player-controlled companions. We don't know.

But I agree about the Bioware method, I loved the script-based solution for controlling companions, so that you could say in advance how you wanted them to handle different scenarios and then just let them deal with it themselves during combat.

Even Morgan Blackhand doesn't fly solo!



..wait.


...awww. Nuts!
 
Who said anything about spells?

And MAYBE having temawork? Bearing in mind that 2020 was never designed as a single player game, that comment seems rather pointless

That's very true - but as a player, you did play it from your characters perspective in the first instance. In a sense, you have to survive on your own abilities, and you are playing alongside people who are doing the same thing, they are building their own agency first. Teamwork was a challenge at times (getting a group of players to agree on anything during our campaign days was an achievement in itself). We couldn't decide whether to buy kibble or get a place to stay...:confused:

I'm not anti team member games, I like that function in and I think it's done well in ME & Dragonage. But in the hyper capitalistic world of cyberpunk, I'd be happier seeing team based play as the exception, not the norm. Having to chose what your voice acted angsty-with-sharpe-wit team mate has gear wise or what abilities they can use might distract players from getting into their own character.

I'd like to see teamwork featuring in the game in a storyline, but not as a constant part of the game. Cooperation in a world without society as necessary evil, not the normal mode of functioning. I'd rather feel the achievement/glory of defiantly overcoming the odds as a single character.

But I can really understand why that might not appeal to everyone. If multiplayer functionality works, then i'd be in favour of it. I wouldn't want to have written in characters to carry around in game during combat etc.
 
That's very true - but as a player, you did play it from your characters perspective in the first instance. In a sense, you have to survive on your own abilities, and you are playing alongside people who are doing the same thing, they are building their own agency first. Teamwork was a challenge at times (getting a group of players to agree on anything during our campaign days was an achievement in itself). We couldn't decide whether to buy kibble or get a place to stay...:confused:

I'm not anti team member games, I like that function in and I think it's done well in ME & Dragonage. But in the hyper capitalistic world of cyberpunk, I'd be happier seeing team based play as the exception, not the norm. Having to chose what your voice acted angsty-with-sharpe-wit team mate has gear wise or what abilities they can use might distract players from getting into their own character.

I'd like to see teamwork featuring in the game in a storyline, but not as a constant part of the game. Cooperation in a world without society as necessary evil, not the normal mode of functioning. I'd rather feel the achievement/glory of defiantly overcoming the odds as a single character.

But I can really understand why that might not appeal to everyone. If multiplayer functionality works, then i'd be in favour of it. I wouldn't want to have written in characters to carry around in game during combat etc.

When you put it that way, I can understand and respect that.

I personally don't see the 'loner' approach being very effective, (mainly because of the lethal nature of combat many of us are hoping for.) If nothing else, we would be relying on team members to keep us alive when we lose conciousness.

I don't want to take full control of team mates either. I want to be the team leader, and I want to be able to issue orders, (in a similar way to ME,) though I want my team mates to be able to refuse to follow those orders if they think its a bad idea or if I have a habit of getting them shot up.

I do think that it could be reasonable for our characters to refuse to recruit team members though, or specifically recruit purely support team mates who do not go on missions, but instead operate behind the scences:
Fixers to gather intel and find hardware, move specialised equipment and operate 'less than legal intersts'
Med-techs to run a clinic and keep you operational
Techies to maintain your gear and vehicles as well as bring in some income from a garage or repairshop
Netrunners to assist you with immediate intel gathering and hacking
Maybe a corp or two to run other legitimate business interests...

You wouldn't need to field these guys, but they can operate in the background. That would be essential in my eyes, as I don't think anyone should be able to 'make it' alone in any cyberpunk setting. The world should be too much to handle for any one individual. SO having others as employee's, homies and close contacts seems more than approprite to me. You can still have the 'glory' for yourself :)
 
I don't want to take full control of team mates either. I want to be the team leader, and I want to be able to issue orders, (in a similar way to ME,) though I want my team mates to be able to refuse to follow those orders if they think its a bad idea or if I have a habit of getting them shot up.

My view on this is one part from a marketing perspective. By the time this game comes out, the model of 3/4 squad working together to beat the odds may seem a bit tired. The fashion and self-centredness of Cyberpunk I think give this game a unique chance to real be the landmark in indepth "feeling" your character gaming. In a way, i'd like to be playing the game in my head, evening when i'm not actually playing it. (used to go through scenarios, plan what guns to buy etc in my mind before the next session).

I can see the fun that can be had tooling up of having team mates, and I suspect there will be some marketing evidence to suggest that pro-social game features rank well among gamers. And i really really want this game to be a success. But I also want it to be free from current game trends, and more driven towards leading the industry towards ways to draw the player more into the experience, which I think the Cyberpunk world is in a strong position to do. This will heighten the hidden hopes and fears that we have for the future and really bring a new level of gaming to the next gen consoles.

I think if you have low empathy stats, then teammate work becomes very hard, if you have high empathy, you can have one "follower" or you can be a "follower" but not using the "team mate" model, which sounds a little bit 90's new age self-esteem movement. I really like your idea of having instructions not being followed -

Perhaps an interdependancy model could be used to determine how well people get on or not, no amount of favour winning or gift buying, or personal missions will overcome key differences etc...
 
Perhaps an interdependancy model could be used to determine how well people get on or not, no amount of favour winning or gift buying, or personal missions will overcome key differences etc...

This should be top of the priority list for a team building mechanic.
 
My view on this is one part from a marketing perspective. By the time this game comes out, the model of 3/4 squad working together to beat the odds may seem a bit tired. The fashion and self-centredness of Cyberpunk I think give this game a unique chance to real be the landmark in indepth "feeling" your character gaming. In a way, i'd like to be playing the game in my head, evening when i'm not actually playing it. (used to go through scenarios, plan what guns to buy etc in my mind before the next session).
And before that it was the one man badass mechanic becoming tired that lead to the team mechanic. I guess everything old is new again. Not a bad argument though, I can see your point.
I think if you have low empathy stats, then teammate work becomes very hard, if you have high empathy, you can have one "follower" or you can be a "follower" but not using the "team mate" model, which sounds a little bit 90's new age self-esteem movement. I really like your idea of having instructions not being followed -
Your orders not being followed and your back being stabbed should be constant risks of hiring canno fodder.....er team mates.
Perhaps an interdependancy model could be used to determine how well people get on or not, no amount of favour winning or gift buying, or personal missions will overcome key differences etc...
I like this idea. Sure you can win over some people but not all of them, and no matter what you do, some people will never like each other.
 
As long as going solo is always, or at least mostly, an option.... I truly hate having ai followers forced on me, and even when I do, I want the interaction of controlling them to be minimal...
 
I like the idea of a "one man show", but what if we had a team mechanic not unlike the kind in old-school cRPGs, like BG and IWD? I am not really a fan of turn-based combat or tactical pausing, but I'd like some squad-based combat options in CP77.
 
You could macro certain commands like flank to the left/right, charge up the middle (especially if you want to hear your teammates tell you to go play a nice game of hide and go fuck yourself), suppressive fire on the left/right/center, heal me/them, retreat, ordered fall back. With a combination of suppressive fire commands and flanking/advancing commands you could pull off fire and maneuver tactics.
 
I'd like to see bit similar to Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighters, Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Meaning you can issue orders but your companions would be smart enough that "follow me" would be enough for most situations.
 
I want my followers to have their own minds, but i should be able to give them some basic orders. (Shoot that bastard, cease fire, stop fallowing me. Wait for me at home etc.)

Also, i don't want any restrictions on how many companions i could bring to a mission. That decision should be solely up to me. (Enemy can have 20 henchmen but i can only have 2? Thats bullshit.) But put some negative effects on it. (Like some of your companions hating each other to death.)
 
I want my followers to have their own minds, but i should be able to give them some basic orders. (Shoot that bastard, cease fire, stop fallowing me. Wait for me at home etc.)
I really want this too.

Also, i don't want any restrictions on how many companions i could bring to a mission. That decision should be solely up to me. (Enemy can have 20 henchmen but i can only have 2? Thats bullshit.) But put some negative effects on it. (Like some of your companions hating each other to death.)
I'm not sure about this one. Personally, I think a party size of 4 is pretty solid. Perhaps augment this with Red Shirts but not 'proper' team mates. But I do think some team mates should end up hating each others guts and refusing to work togther, if not just straight up killing each other. Proper personality clashes. (Like trying to get Adam Smasher and Morgan Blackhand to work together for more than 5 seconds.)
 
I really want this too.


I'm not sure about this one. Personally, I think a party size of 4 is pretty solid. Perhaps augment this with Red Shirts but not 'proper' team mates. But I do think some team mates should end up hating each others guts and refusing to work togther, if not just straight up killing each other. Proper personality clashes. (Like trying to get Adam Smasher and Morgan Blackhand to work together for more than 5 seconds.)

You should be technically able to bring more than a few companions with you, but they should refuse to come with you if you bring that other person they hate. That would limit the party size effectively. But it wouldn't be a permanent limitation. (I'm also thinking under the assumption, you would have about 6 or 7 companions at most. Certainly not over 10.) If they both like you well enough, you can be the bridge between them. Depending on your relationship with them, they will either start liking each other or at least start to work with each other without causing problems. So bringing more companions with you can be something like an unlockable feature.

Also, you should be able to bring with you as many red shirts as possible. They are expendable.. But expensive.. But if they die, you wont have to pay.. .So, yay!
 
I want my followers to have their own minds, but i should be able to give them some basic orders. (Shoot that bastard, cease fire, stop fallowing me. Wait for me at home etc.)

Also, i don't want any restrictions on how many companions i could bring to a mission. That decision should be solely up to me. (Enemy can have 20 henchmen but i can only have 2? Thats bullshit.) But put some negative effects on it. (Like some of your companions hating each other to death.)

Ups I did not include in the poll Johnny Silverhand and any rockman mass control abilities. My bad, shame on me.
 
I'd like to see bit similar to Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighters, Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Meaning you can issue orders but your companions would be smart enough that "follow me" would be enough for most situations.

Yeah, this would be a pretty awesome middle ground.
 
Yeah, this would be a pretty awesome middle ground.

Binary Domain did exactly that. You can choose two team members for each mission, based on their abilities and fighting styles, and you can issue them orders. They can and will ignore those orders if they don't trust you, (because you have a habit of getting them shot,) or if they are unable to carryout the order 'safely'.
 
If the game is like Skyrim or Fallout 3/NV, where companions exist but aren't necessary, then if the plot allows for it, and if the encounters scale in difficulty at least a little bit, then allowing for a small team wouldn't be an issue. As for the level of control, it depends largely on the AI; a great AI needs little control, a bad AI needs to have it's hand held all the time.

However, I for one don't want the game to be like Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age or similar, where the use of a team is expected, and going it alone is just a manufactured and unnecessary level of difficulty. Personally I like the stealth approach, or the BOOM! HEADSHOT! -approach, both of which sort of require me to go at it alone, so I'm hoping there's no mandatory companions.
 
Top Bottom