Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
02-08-2010, 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealParadox View Post
Sounds a lot like the Diplomacy system from Vanguard, which was a pretty great addition for a MMO. It was really a way to drive the games story and produce gamewide events and triggers. Done right, with the right method of play it could be a decent idea. BTW, the Diplomacy System in Vanguard was my second favorite thing about the game so I'm not knocking the idea. Only concern I have is that it might be a little more than the Cryptic Crew can handle.
I did not like that system at all. It made absolutly no sence what so ever in that game and the same would hold true here.Leave the card playing for poker or blackjack. It doesn't belong in a MMO or RPG. My opinion only ofc.


Diplomacy in STO could be very simple, but is too late for the most part. It would have been better to have options within each mission as you level. More than one way to complete a mission. Each with different outcomes and rewards. They could have had skills you could choose that were for diplomacy. If you complete a mission with diplomacy instead of combat. You would get rewards that increase your diplomacy.

This would make playing alts more fun with different ways to complete the same missions. Personally I don't like the game within a game like in Vangaurd. I like it to all be one system with choices like SPG RPGs. The real test will be SW:TOR and a real choice that creates a personal story for your character.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
02-08-2010, 10:27 AM
I'm all for diplomacy. I was saddened when I didn't get any missions to try and convince a new species to join the federation.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
02-08-2010, 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylan
I did not like that system at all. It made absolutly no sence what so ever in that game and the same would hold true here.Leave the card playing for poker or blackjack. It doesn't belong in a MMO or RPG. My opinion only ofc.


Diplomacy in STO could be very simple, but is too late for the most part. It would have been better to have options within each mission as you level. More than one way to complete a mission. Each with different outcomes and rewards. They could have had skills you could choose that were for diplomacy. If you complete a mission with diplomacy instead of combat. You would get rewards that increase your diplomacy.

This would make playing alts more fun with different ways to complete the same missions. Personally I don't like the game within a game like in Vangaurd. I like it to all be one system with choices like SPG RPGs. The real test will be SW:TOR and a real choice that creates a personal story for your character.
That is the great thing about diplomacy in Vanguard--it's totally optional so you can ignore it if you hate it. I spent a couple years as a hardcore diplomacy ignorer until I decided to try it out and discovered that it was actually sort of fun. It has definite benefits as well, but you can go through the game just fighting and leveling your adventuring with no ill effects. (For those not familiar, Vanguard has three distinct spheres--adventuring, crafting, and diplomacy--and you level each independently of the other.) Since we won't have any meaningful crafting system in STO, I think that implementing some sort of diplomacy system would flesh the game out nicely.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
02-08-2010, 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtj
That is the great thing about diplomacy in Vanguard--it's totally optional so you can ignore it if you hate it. I spent a couple years as a hardcore diplomacy ignorer until I decided to try it out and discovered that it was actually sort of fun. It has definite benefits as well, but you can go through the game just fighting and leveling your adventuring with no ill effects. (For those not familiar, Vanguard has three distinct spheres--adventuring, crafting, and diplomacy--and you level each independently of the other.) Since we won't have any meaningful crafting system in STO, I think that implementing some sort of diplomacy system would flesh the game out nicely.
I did try it and found it just didn't fit into what I would think of when trying diplomacy. It is a card game that made very little sence to me. I just could not wrap my head around choosing cards as a battle of words with a winner and loser.


I believe there should be diplomacy in this game. It makes sence as an IP and an option for game play. The diplomacy should be part of the game with a choice that determines your actions. Kill or let live. Chase or let them leave. Believe what a diplmate tells you or don't with different outcomes. It should feel as a part of the entire game. One game with more than one outcome. If they are seperate, you can ignore it. I would prefer it all be part of the game. That would make diplomacy mean something in game play. Not just a side show as in Vangaurd.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
02-08-2010, 11:00 AM
Aaah glad to see this thread is back ! Good to see that it keeps interesting ppl.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
02-08-2010, 02:06 PM
After reading a few posts about what people are thinking for pvp and end-game struggles, I think diplomacy would make for a great pvp conquest idea. This would work if there are just Federation and Klingons, but will also work when (if) there are other factions added.

The basics being that both sides want to expand their control of systems. The choices are either conquest through force (pew pew) or through diplomacy. Each faction would then have to negotiate with the neutral planet. The better one faction is at negotiating, the harder it becomes for the other faction. There could be a tie-in for combat as well, so if one faction is attempting to conquer by force they then would not be able to negotiate. I think this would evolve some pretty interesting strategies at high levels as to whether to talk or fight.

By allowing this kind of end-game strategy session, you could give meaning to rank. Admirals could assign missions (prebuilt by cryptic and available to X rank admirals who... Haven't really fleshed this out yet) to negotiators to complete or commanders to attack. Then you change the entire concept of rank so that people are promoted based on accomplishments instead of grinding. Would also help with what is happening now which is there will be far too many admirals and not enough lower ranks.

I guess that I really enjoy the idea of player run content where we decide how to shape the Federation or the Klingon Empire. Would save Cryptic from having to constantly create content and allow things to progress more organically and realistically. I think we have a lot of good players out there that would take this and run with it making something truly unique and new.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
02-09-2010, 03:45 AM
...................bump
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
02-09-2010, 05:07 AM
Jack:

Perhaps instead of PvP, it could be a way of getting at that 'competitive PvE" that STO mentioned they'd have. Instead of players directly engaging with each other, they compete for the systems in question through diplomatic control. Of course, I'm not against direct PvP, either.

Perhaps a zone divided into three sectors (like we have now)... the outer zones are competitive PvE--diplomacy, resource control, and so on--where each faction tries to hold control of systems through a variety of means. The center zone is where actual PvP combat determines control. But, of course, for any zone like this to work, we'd need to have a REASON to control those zones... I'm not sure this game really has anything in place for that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
02-09-2010, 09:21 AM
On the idea of "moral choice" systems, a la Bioware games:

I find them pretty thin, myself. Basically, it ends up that your choices boil down to the "Aggressive" option, the "Defensive" option, and the "Passive" option. Since dialogue has to be written for each possible response, development time means that fewer lines are written. There's usually even some overlap, to reduce that time... which also reduces the number of possible outcomes. Usually, the max is 3.

What's more, it means that your character can be one of THREE people. Not the one you want him to make, unless you want him to be one of THREE people. The system puts words in your character's mouth, forces a particular specific personality on them, and then mascarades itself as a "choice."

So, yeah, I don't find ME, KOTOR, or their sequels to be all that impressive in terms of "choice." But what's more, they are SINGLE-PLAYER games.

When you have too many endings in an MMO, making the consequences of the endings to great means you run into problems with grouping... or with continuity of story... or with development time (what if only 10% of the population ever chooses option C? do you abandon it, or does that 10% get equal time to the other 90%?) So, either you create far too much work and hassle... or the endings are pretty similar, so it's really not consequential anyway.

The problem here is a choice system that focuses on ENDINGS. You choose the ENDING by virtue of which pre-programmed path you take. But once you crack the code (I mean, once you figure out which of the three golden paths you're going to walk) you just mash that response and go for it--because there is usually more benefit to min-maxing it, just like everything else.

I'd prefer a choice system that focuses on METHODS. Instead of choosing the ending, per se, you choose HOW you get there. Maybe, yes, the reward is different for a mission, but for the most part the answer ends up the same--good guys win, bad guys lose, innocent folks survive to make more innocent folks. But what's different is that you got to choose how YOUR CHARACTER would have done it.

You wanna blow things up? Go for it!
You want to reason it out? Do it!
You think you can sweet-talk them and persuade them to see it your way? Let's see what you've got!
You'd rather be more direct, and threaten force--in hopes of avoiding battle? By all means!

In a dialogue system, you can't really choose anything but option 1 if you want some sort of reward. Why? Because there's no strategy involved in clicking dialogue choices. Your opponent can't surprise you, or land a lucky crit, or otherwise throw off your plan. Combat takes longer and involves more choices, so it gets a bigger reward... so if you choose diplomacy, you're just nerfing your rewards.

Unless, that is, we have a diplomacy system that actually involves strategic, chess-like gameplay. We take out the specific, intermediate dialogue, and instead focus on the tit-for-tat aspect of verbal interplay. YOU decide what it is your character says, YOU decide his or her personality, and you use SKILLS that fall in line with that (rather than forcing your CHARACTER to fall in line with the DIALOGUE offered). And then you engage in a strategic verbal "battle" that is far more comparable in difficult and scope to combat.

Now you've got a system in which you can ACTUALLY choose diplomacy over combat, when the option arises, and the game is justified in giving you an equivalent (though different) reward for your efforts.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
02-09-2010, 09:23 AM
Well I like it. This is a depth of gameplay I think I would enjoy OP! I would also like to say I was never a fan of biowares moral choice systems. No real moral choices can be made if your getting lightside/darkside points. Its not just about what you do, but why you do it.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:05 PM.