Why LEVELLING has to go in Cyberpunk 2077.

[En-en]

2:05 "multiple different progresion systems-skills, attributes, perks''
Previews also mentioned skill checks, like hacking. No social skill checks though, they wanted to make it more about player story choices(eurogamer interview)

You appear to be able to talk your way through a lot of tense situations. There are engineering and hacking skill checks. Is speech also a skill check?
Patrick Mills: We don't want to gate speech behind particular classes or anything like that. We want that to be about the story and about your choices in the story.

 

[Suhiira]

2:05 "multiple different progresion systems-skills, attributes, perks''.

This is the ONLY review I've seen that refers to skills, attributes, and perks.
Here's to hoping!!!!

BUT!
Take a look at 3:38.

 

[sgtaov]

the system of levels is only needed in an MMO

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

BUT!
Take a look at 3:38.

I’m currently unable to watch it, what happens at 3:38?

 

[Suhiira]

I’m currently unable to watch it, what happens at 3:38?

He talks about character progression (leveling) and mentions ONLY stats, perks, and new cyberware.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Ok. This is exactly what I meant earlier. There is no clear info on this. There’s something there, but what all is anyones guess.

 

[Suhiira]

Ok. This is exactly what I meant earlier. There is no clear info on this. There’s something there, but what all is anyones guess.

Yep.
Based on what we can surmise (hell ... guess) I'm fairly sure it's a 3-tree system.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

No social skill checks though, they wanted to make it more about player story choices(eurogamer interview)

So no skillchecks in dialog?

This gift just keeps on giving.

 

[lelxrv]

On the second thought, I believe, it can be done without levels system and user other means to guide a player through the world without making him go to where it's too early to be. But it's MUCH-MUCH harder to design an open-world game without it.

Levels system isn't inherently bad in a single player RPG, as show games like old Fallout, System Shock and Baldur's Gate. It's just sometimes it's used in a very blunt way, similar to The Witcher 3 or MMOs. Just like mini-map, level restriction is an easy way out for giant games.

 

[K.Constantine]

The biggest flaw of The Witcher 3 was the encounter design and badly handled leveling, I'm pretty sure they would have learned their lesson by now.

 

[Odinsauge]

I would prefer a bit more complex system, not too complex. If you don't know the rules and you have to spend a day to set up your character and you can miss skill it any time of the game, that's boring. I did't like that in the past and I sure will not like it now with even less time for games. But I'd like to see something better than in the past few years. Like @Suhiira already mentioned RPG lite was to overused recently. I can't tell when I saw a good skill system last. Dragon Age Origins was quite good. and beside TW3 I think I haven't played any RPG in the last years, there were none that drew my attention.

 

[PaniMauser]

Enemy scaling to player level always feel better. Otherwise what is the point in world being open if you are still restricted to certain zones? Might as well do hub system.

Remove loading screens just to put in other barriers that prevent players from going wherever they want?

In linear game it is understandable - writers want to control narrative beats and when they fall.

But it cannot possibly work in open world games anyways, so why restrict players by mobs?

When enemies are scaled to player levels, it is always fun. When there are levels - then some aread are locked due to high-lvl mobs and starting areas become a joke upon return, because mobs die to character sneazing in their general direction.

I can understand how levels could work with story bosses though - to encourage players to explore more before they progress main quest. But even then, there are many ways to make bosses challenging, like requiring certain skills/weapons/choices to defeat them.

 

[4meg]

Forcing players to level up in order to access the main story is no better than XP mining you see in MMOs. Mind numbingly dull. If a player can figure out what's going on in the first 10 minutes of play and wants to get right to the heart of the matter, so be it. They may not succeed, but requiring a certain level to access any part of the world or story is just wrong.

 

[CyberAddict]

So no skillchecks in dialog?

This gift just keeps on giving.

Yeah, I feel a bit conflicted about this. Normally a staple of design into narrative is things like these so it feels as if investments into the system pays off. Perhaps you have additional dialogue on subjects in some other way?

My interpretation as of now is that they're more focused on you looking at the dialogue options and considering them heavily by reading as though you're actually there then just think "Oh this area of dialogue is locked out, must have screwed up somehow because i didn't invest into skills."

 

[En-en]

As much fun as I had seducing mortals in Vampire the Masquearade as a sexy vampire, social skills in RPGs were almost always just dumb straighforward ''skip combat'' or ''get stuff cheaper'' skills. Might as well just focus on choice and consequence element.

 

[Sneky]

As much fun as I had seducing mortals in Vampire the Masquearade as a sexy vampire, social skills in RPGs were almost always just dumb straighforward ''skip combat'' or ''get stuff cheaper'' skills. Might as well just focus on choice and consequence element.

social aspect in Cyberpunk could be connected to "Cool" and "Street Cred"

 

[z3r0_c001]

Enemy scaling to player level always feel better. Otherwise what is the point in world being open if you are still restricted to certain zones? Might as well do hub system.

Remove loading screens just to put in other barriers that prevent players from going wherever they want?

In linear game it is understandable - writers want to control narrative beats and when they fall.

But it cannot possibly work in open world games anyways, so why restrict players by mobs?

When enemies are scaled to player levels, it is always fun. When there are levels - then some aread are locked due to high-lvl mobs and starting areas become a joke upon return, because mobs die to character sneazing in their general direction.

I can understand how levels could work with story bosses though - to encourage players to explore more before they progress main quest. But even then, there are many ways to make bosses challenging, like requiring certain skills/weapons/choices to defeat them.

Nah that's not as realistic, enemies shouldn't scale. You shouldn't be able to go just anywhere starting out. You have to improve yourself and train before you take on more powerful enemies or else you end up like Skyrim where you can just breeze through the game without leveling up because enemies will remain easy to defeat due to low levels. You have to put in work to get the rewards, you can't be handed total freedom for no work

 

[Loostreaks]

I'll copy my previous post on this:

Action Rpgs need to take a look at Action games when it comes to Gameplay and Form, and Rpgs when it comes to structure.

Progression should be based on changing what player can DO, instead of adding multiply/+x % bonuses to existing player actions...there is not a single (open world) rpg where this didn't ruin gameplay/difficulty.

And higher lvl abilities should require higher skill/execution from the player, so it's not just spam to win or making previous ones less relevant.

So if you have a skill Athletics, player would gradually improve his basic animations, learn how to dodge faster, different evasion and movement techniques, etc.

On the other hand, instead of higher level enemies simply having superinflated stats, developers should counteract player progression and create difficulty through variation in enemy AI( speed, aggression, morale and abilities), encounter design ( more varied enemy types, better synergies of enemy subclasses), environment obstacles, area parameters ( reinforcements, jammers, security, reconaissance, etc), etc.

The Other part of progression comes down to : Equipment

I think overall Souls games have the best rpg itemization in modern games, that solves most problems in a simple, elegant way.

You have:
1) Trash tier..this is simply while player is getting familar with the game, in very early stages.
2) Standard gear...all around average stats, easily upgradable/customizable with common, easy to find resources
3) High grade gear...above average stats, but far more limited customization, more specialized
4) Unique gear...when you kill a "boss", you can gain a completely one-of-a-kind weapon, that looks and plays completely differently, highest stats.


Only thing I would change is make last type, completely unmodifiable and instead of using crafting material to improve base stats, design weapon/armor mods ( like in Fallout IV).

This balances customization with traditional, most important DPS/Damage reduction stats, and opens up a ton of more options with character builds.

 

[EngryEngineer]

*edit for an aside about the survey itself* The survey is really flawed, I feel like it is a toss up, but no because of tl;dr, did not vote. *end edit*

In my opinion this is less a matter of using levels or not for character advancement, but if health is fixed/derived or if it grows outside of attribute changes. I think this because as far as attributes/skills/perks, growing those with points you get progressively or in less frequent but higher yield bursts I think they are functionally the same.

If health arbitrarily grows (as happens in most level based systems), as you get more capable you also get more of a buffer before dying. This gives a sense that the character is getting more powerful, and is exactly the tone you want to set for a high fantasy heroic epic. At high levels, a big boss type character might be able to one shot you, but most minions won't pose a threat individually. Games that have health that is fixed or derived from attributes/gear, like Cyberpunk 2020, allow for characters to become more capable/bad ass, but still vulnerable; a bullet to the brainpan isn't less dangerous just because they've been around the block a few times. You can still increase resilience through cyberware or increasing the damage reducing/soaking related stat, but in general a human is a human. This maintains a sense of danger because with planning and/or luck, a nobody could ace an elite agent. While you might be a total BAMF, a part of your brain is always aware that it could all suddenly end from a stray bullet.

That said, my point above is a generalization, I think there could be exceptions, I don't get paid to ponder/implement/test game systems, so I'm sure experts can find ways around the general mathematical tendencies. Additionally, that tone works better for table top games, because aside from total party wipes, if you character dies you can roll a new one and still continue with the overall story. In single player video games, that reduction of vulnerability may be more of a positive impact on actual play than its negative impact on tone. I also fully accept that while I feel pretty comfortable with boiling it down to health points, that I am likely missing other parts so don't hesitate to correct me if that's the case.

 

[Suhiira]

Forcing players to level up in order to access the main story is no better than XP mining you see in MMOs. Mind numbingly dull. If a player can figure out what's going on in the first 10 minutes of play and wants to get right to the heart of the matter, so be it. They may not succeed, but requiring a certain level to access any part of the world or story is just wrong.

Yep, Open World should also mean you have the ability to get your ass handed to you by going someplace you don't belong. Believe it or not most people understand this concept and don't have a problem with it. The handful that think they should be able to kill any and everything they encounter aren't RPGers anyway, merely shooter gamers looking for their next adreneline fix.