Proposal: Diplomacy System (for the future)
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
01-31-2010, 11:32 AM
The last discussion (on the now-archived forums) generated some decent discussion on how we could do PvP, or even expand beyoned 1v1 encounters, into 1v1v1, with NPC involvement. That content is posted below:
I think if it was done for ALL of them, it would lose the novelty... but for some of the major missions that would involve big negotiations, I think it would make the setting seem more appropriate--for instance, negotiating a treaty of some sort usually demands neutral third-party oversight.
But to extend this idea a bit, I think it could fit well in some high-level missions for you, as a Federation (or Klingon) representative, to SERVE as the moderator between two factions. I'll admit this would take some adjustment, as the current design only really takes into account 1v1 encounters.... but perhaps any of these solutions could work for 1 v 1 v 1:
1) The encounter has a countdown, and the two negotiating factions are playing against each other. The job of the Player-Moderator is to intervene and ensure that neither side's bars run out before the time limit expires. Turns go back and forth between the negotiators, but the Player-Moderator can interrupt and play an ability when necessary.... I really don't like this idea as a whole, but it could be workable.
2) Instead of just a countdown, the game plays out like a tug-of-war, in which the moderator switches to whichever side is losing (based on remaining points in various bars). This can be indicated on the screen in any number of ways, so the player can keep the argument toward the "middle ground." And as long as the countdown (whether it be a timer or number of turns) ends in that middle ground, the outcome is an acceptable compromise.
3) Like 2, but instead of ANY kind of countdown, the encounter ends when one side does, in fact, reduce one of his opponent's bars to zero. But the "compromise indictaor," whatever form that may take, still has to be toward the middle ground... basically, the player doesn't decide who wins, but they are there to ensure it's not a STOMPING.
4) The Player-Moderator actually has a two-part encounter going on. For one turn, they're playing against Side A, then they switch to Side B. So now the player has to use their skills and bars to bring down TWO opponents (and depending on how cooldowns are done, you might not be able to use the same skills on both opponents!). If the Player-Moderator succeeds, both sides reach compromise.
The more I think about it, the more I think 3 and 4 are totally workable for this sort of encounter. Due to balance issues, I would never go beyond 1v1v1. Even PvP could be Fed v Klingon, with an NPC "moderator" playing the role from #2 or #3 above--basically, you want to win, but not so quickly that you take the full NPC "aggro."
This would be akin to a PvE combat encounter in which a Fed and a Klingon are fighting a boss AND each other...... you want to win, but you also need the opponent to help you kill the boss. And at the very least, you want to be able to transfer the aggro to them when you need a break, but take it back before they die (leaving you alone to face the boss).... Yeah, this could work.
But that would, of course, be endgame-style stuff. The "standard fare" would be 1v1 encounters.